Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting

Response in Albanian (majority muslim) community

The attack was condemned by the Albanian prime minister (source: http://koha.net/?id=27&l=39934 ). People in Kosovo gathered to show their support (source: http://koha.net/?id=27&l=39987 ). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.194.172.212 (talk) 02:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Muslim community response

This information is not relevant to the current event and serves an extraneous social agenda, it should be removed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiar.rohnds (talk • contribs) 23:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You exemplify in every way the very meaning of brainwashed ideologue if you believe that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.116.64.179 (talk) 05:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Waaahhhh waahhh wahh, stop crying dude. Do we really need a constant reminder that not 'all' muslims are bad? How is this related to the current event? The muslim community (along with their opinions) have absolutely nothing to do with this, and quite frankly nobody cares. Keep crying though, maybe if you cry louder someone will hear you. And why stop there, you could even escalate to violence and start shouting "allah snackbar" at people too :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andiar.rohnds (talk • contribs) 14:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Article title

I see the title of this page was changed from 2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting without prior discussion. It should be moved it back to the original title, as the current title of Charlie Hebdo massacre is very much out of sync with our usual approach of titling such events. If anyone wishes to change the title, please discuss it here first. Prioryman (talk) 13:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

(Addendum) An administrator will need to perform the move. I'll list it on WP:RM. Prioryman (talk) 13:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree someone should be bold and move the page back. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support the move satusuro 14:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Support moving back: shooting is more neutral than massacre. Fomalhaut76 (talk) 14:08, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done -- The Anome (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I moved it. The article was never named "2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting" prior to my move. The move is in line with previous events of magnitude. -- Veggies (talk) 14:10, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

We attempt not to editorialize in article titles: the more neutral description is better for now. -- The Anome (talk) 14:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The '2015' is unnecessary. The term 'massacre' is quite apt in this situation, and is a well established term for events of this nature. Gareth E Kegg (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Well if you do say so yourself. In the meantime, let me present Aramoana massacre, Batang Kali massacre, Eilabun massacre, Munich massacre, and the Tula massacre as counterexamples. And I find it rather irritating you didn't even bother to open your decision up to discussion. -- Veggies (talk) 14:19, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush. Let's wait until reliable sources settle on a name for this event - Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. Just because reliable sources call other events "massacres" does not mean that everything else has to be called a "massacre" too. Bencherlite^Talk 14:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"There is no rush"— Oh, right. That must be why the decision was made without even the attempt to seek anyone's input. -- Veggies (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All those are widely accepted names for their subjects, as used in reliable sources. If the world decides to call this the "Charlie Hebdo massacre", we will eventually do that too. But for now, it's too soon to tell, so we should follow our well-established naming conventions, instead of performing what effectively constitutes original research to choose a name based on comparisons with other articles' topics. -- The Anome (talk) 14:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There is no rush to be the first to call it a massacre. It is surprising that you of all people think it appropriate to complain about not seeking input before changing the title when, err, not only did you move it to "massacre" without seeking input but I can actually see a discussion above in favour of moving it away from "massacre". Does that "input" not count? Bencherlite^Talk 14:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

There was nothing on the talk page when I moved it boldly. And I'm not wired into Wikipedia—I don't magically know when something's been posted. The first comment up here is at 13:55. The page was moved at 14:08. If you think 13 minutes is all the time that's required to wait for input, at least have the courage to say so explicitly. -- Veggies (talk) 14:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

13 minutes of discussion by five editors is, at least, a discussion. As far as I can tell, you didn't discuss it at all before making your move: there's nothing wrong with that (see WP:BOLD), but it does put you in a poor position to complain about others. Moreover: please don't accuse other editors of cowardice, which risks crossing the line between vigorous discussion and incivility. -- The Anome (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, the article was just moved again to a more sensible title—and without (gasp!) a discussion. Morons. -- Veggies (talk) 14:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

No one said that bold moves are inherently inappropriate. (Of course, this one reflects two users' talk page comments.) The point is that there's no rush to label the event a "massacre", which we don't do unless and until such a designation predominates among reliable sources. Otherwise, our convention is to use the term "shooting", "bombing" or "attack" (or the plural form, if applicable), depending on the incident's nature. —David Levy 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, please see Wikipedia:No personal attacks. Disagreement is fine, but name-calling is not. —David Levy 15:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The word "magazine" is redundant (and arguably inaccurate as it is called a "newspaper"). The title would be better omitting this word in the interests of conciseness. —sroc 💬 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC) The word "magazine" is redundant (and arguably inaccurate as it is called a "newspaper"). The title would be better omitting this word in the interests of conciseness. —sroc 💬 14:41, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

For this reason (and because, as Gareth noted above, "2015" is superfluous, given the lack of other shootings in the same location), I've shortened the title to Charlie Hebdo shooting. —David Levy 15:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The offices were previously firebombed. Although that doesn't create a disambiguation issue (the firebombing doesn't have its own article in any case), I'd say that "2015" would be useful to readers in the future. No panic, because "Charlie Hebdo shootings" will do fine for now, just saying. Formerip (talk) 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

In my view, it's more helpful to omit "2015" from the title, as its inclusion might lead one to infer that the earlier incident also involved a shooting (a possibility that entered my mind when I saw "2015 Charlie Hebdo magazine shooting" and recalled only that the offices were attacked previously). —David Levy 16:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The present title is the best possible title for the time being. There is no need for the "2015". Let it stand. We shall see what happens as this develops further. Be wary of WP:RECENTISM. RGloucester — ☎ 17:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure on if it really could qualify as a "newspaper". It mostly seems to be a compilation of provocative political cartoons. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 20:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I, in my opinion, think that, A, you keep it at shooting, and B, add 2015 back. After all, they were firebombed in 2011, am I correct? Elephantrul (talk) 16:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC) elephantrul, 16:07, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Second deadliest attack

Im not going to edit this but some non political editor really should include the Paris massacre, as it was an attack that killed more people.... Paris_massacre_of_1961 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.203.27.196 (talk) 14:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

State violence is by definition not terrorism.Amyzex (talk) 19:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

State terrorism does exist: State_terrorism. And the massacre of Algerian protestors was exactly that: An organized attempt to achieve a political goal (silencing the Algerian protestors) through illegal violence. So yes, please include the Paris massacre ! (Pieter Felix Smit )Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 20:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Using a book from 2008 to compare the Charlie Hebdo shooting to the Paris Massacre of 1961 is WP:OR. Blaue Max (talk) 11:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Definition of terrorism is such a debated topic that there is an article on it.   M aurice  11:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Assassinations"

Should we be referring to the deaths as "assassinations"? it doesn't seem to fit the definition. Nohomersryan (talk) 15:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I initiated those changes and I thought it was appropriate for the nature as targeting intelligentsia specifically over dissent: assassination. The motive was political, individuals prominent and certain victims defined (strategically). 81.102.147.12 (talk) 15:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The use of the word "assassination" is probably the result of poor translation from French, in which language "assassiner" means simply "to murder", but is easy to mistranslate if careless.

Victim pictures?

The years in the captions of the victims' pictures are confusing: "Victims [...] Cabu in 2012. Charb in 2011." These pictures are pretty recent, is the year information really useful? jan (talk) 15:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed them. It looked as if it was the year in which they became a victim. jan (talk) 15:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Some mention that other victims names are not known yet would be respectful. It's odd that there are 12 dead but only a special subset shown/named. (174.131.5.205 (talk) 17:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC))

Why have the images of victims been removed (I also tidied up a broken reference to Time Magazine) Stub Mandrel (talk) 18:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NFCC are likely reasons. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:30, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

When did Charb become editor?

Charlie Hebdo says:

Charb was the most recent editor, holding the post from 2012 until his death in the attack on the magazine's offices in 2015. His predecessors were François Cavanna (1969–1981) and Philippe Val (1992–2009).

In 2009, Philippe Val resigned after being appointed director of France Inter, a public radio station to which he has contributed since the early 1990s. His functions were split between two cartoonists, Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier) and Riss (Laurent Sourisseau).

Charb says:

...most known for his work with Charlie Hebdo where he became editor in 2009.

Charb worked for many newspapers, Charlie Hebdo – which he edited from 2009 until his death in 2015...

So did he become editor in 2009 or in 2012? (Or, who held the post since 2009?) —sroc 💬 15:46, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Fudpukker just changed this article to say 2009, with the edit summary: "Charb was editor since 2009 - source - Charb wiki entry". Wikipedia articles cannot be a source for other articles (see WP:CIRCULAR); and it is contradicted by the Charlie Hebdo article in any case. It seems 2009 is probably right, so I haven't reverted it, but we need a definitive source on this and all three articles need to be updated to be consistent. —sroc 💬 15:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

2009 is correct. Mezigue (talk) 16:14, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Looking at recent edits, we have the classic "as of"/"since" confusion to blame. Mezigue (talk) 16:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the circular reference reminder. There are a few French sources with the 2009 date [[1]] Fudpukker (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I've added coordinates for this article, using the coordinates given on Commons for the images. Can anyone verify that these are correct? -- The Anome (talk) 15:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update: news articles are giving the rue Nicolas Appert as the offices' location: the coordinates match up with that. Whether they are for the exact address of the offices, I don't know. -- The Anome (talk) 15:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Update 2: the infobox also has coordinates, which are only very slightly different. Ideally, both should be checked/corrected, so we can settle on only one location. -- The Anome (talk) 16:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, it's right. Their offices are at 10 rue Nicolas Appert.[2][3][4] I've updated the coordinate template to show the more accurate coordinate. - Kollision (talk) 16:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Internal links

Hello. I think a link to Jyllands-Posten Muhammad cartoons controversy should be added to the background section. Errontropy (talk) 16:12, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Undue weight to Vatican reaction

How come the vatican reaction gets a full paragraph on its own, while reactions by heads of state otherwise are clumped together with a mere mention for each? -- Cimon Avaro; on a pogostick. (talk) 17:06, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Religion and politics, that's why. While we're on the subject, shouldn't Ian Hislop's reaction be included?

It was a deserving paragraph, as the other reactions should also have. Some editors are too impatient to allow expansion so the paragraph was axed. I'd revert it back to the list format that allows for indentational expansion but it would not last more than 5 seconds I reckon. Zup326 (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Salman Rushdie's statement should be included, or at least a synopsis. Capsuled so many topics in a short paragraph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gnostradamus (talk • contribs) 17:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I introduced that part because i was thinking of making a section named Reactions of Religious organizations. But now the section is far better. But i dont understand why the reaction of the French Imams gathered in te Vatican has been deleted. Yogurto (talk) 23:05, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Completely agree that the reactions of Salman Rushdie and Ian Hislop are of especial interest. Philipdw (talk) 12:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reactions

Japan

Following the shooting incident in Paris on January 7, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe sent the following message to H.E. Mr. Francois Hollande, President of France.

"I cannot help but be immensely shocked and outraged to hear about the shooting terrorism incident that occurred in Paris, resulting in a large number of casualties. Vicious acts of terrorism such as this cannot be tolerated for any reason and I resolutely condemn it. On behalf of the Government of Japan and its people, I would like to express our sincere condolences to all the victims and their families, and to extend our heartfelt sympathies to the injured. Japan stands with France at this difficult time."

http://japan.kantei.go.jp/97_abe/diplomatic/201501/1209377_9978.html

Bulgaria

Please add Bulgaria's reaction to list:

Bulgaria – Prime Minister Boyko Borisov condemned the attack, stating that it has "caused our anger against the violent loss of human life and the encroachment upon the freedom of speech."

Hungary

please add Hungary reaction to list:

http://www.politics.hu/20150107/orban-condemns-paris-attack-on-satirical-magazine/ http://hungarymatters.hu/images/download/hungary_matters/2015/morning/hm0108am.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:5C0:1400:A:0:0:0:5A5 (talk) 03:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Iran

Someone please add Iran's reaction to list:

Iran Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokeswoman Marziyeh Afkham condemned Wednesday’s terrorist attack in Paris and said any act of terrorism against innocent people is opposed to Islamic teachings.

Poland

Poland The Prime Minister of Polish Government Ewa Kopacz and President of the Republic of Poland Bronisław Komorowski condemned the attack, naming it as "barbaric act of violence, that constitutes an attack on the fundamental values of Europe: democracy and freedom of speech"

Text like this given above should be added.

Portugal

Someone add the Portuguese reaction to the list: Portugal – The Government of Portugal.Falconet8 (talk) 17:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I tried converting it to a list format as the amount of reactions worldwide is going to be too big for a simple prose format. There's no way to include the dozens of inevitable reactions by using prose, especially as they stand now only half of them are sourced. List format with a description of each reaction is the sensible way to include them all. I was about to include Portugal but alas never had the chance to before my edits were reverted. Zup326 (talk) 17:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The list seems to be lasting for the moment, so I've gone ahead and done a moderate translation of what was written in your source and will include it. Good find. Zup326 (talk) 20:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Italy and Unites States

It could also be mentioned that John Kerry spoke in French about the killings to express is solidarity in the causes of facing extremism and defending liberty (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/france/11330941/Charlie-Hebdo-attack-John-Kerry-speaks-in-Paris-following-shooting.html). Matteo Renzi also spoke in French about this event (http://www.lefigaro.fr/flash-actu/2015/01/07/97001-20150107FILWWW00376--charlie-hebdo-on-est-tous-francais-renzi.php). Je suis Charlie (talk) 19:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

References

Deadliest attack in Europe since 7/7/05?

I'm honestly quite surprised to find so many sources saying this. I mean, has everyone forgotten the 2011 Norway attacks? Undescribed (talk) 18:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Clearly a matter of forgetting that the attacks in Norway were terrorism, because it was a white Christian who perpetrated them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.19.232 (talk) 19:59, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I would say it is far less likely to be the religion claimed by the perpetrator(s) (was Brevik, Christian, I thought not) and more likely that the inclusion of Norway in the word 'Europe' is dependent on the intended definition of 'Europe', but I agree, to my mind, 'Europe' in the sense we should be using would refer to the continent rather than to the political entity. Mtaylor848 (talk) 20:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

That's true, Norway is not part of the European Union. I guess it would depend on your intended usage of the word. Xharm (talk) 10:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the bombings in London on 7 July 2005?

The article currently describes the shooting as "the deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since the bombings in London on 7 July 2005" and uses this source. Time magazine obviously doesn't seem to consider the 2011 Norway attacks to have been terrorism, then?--86.190.67.16 (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

As per the above I've removed the statement. - Simeon (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest terrorist attack in Europe since London 2005?

By death count, wouldn't it be the deadliest attack since the Utøya shooting in 2011? 92.200.76.254 (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Vitry-le-Francois bombing of 18 June 1961

An article on the FLN bombing of the train referred to in this article should really be added and links provided both here and at List of massacres in France.Amyzex (talk) 19:21, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Motives unknown

People are still on the run, so how can you know the motives? No videos or manifesto. Stop guessing.

-G — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.31.37.239 (talk) 18:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Because they verbally told us their motives before leaving. "Allahu Akbar. We have avenged the Prophet". Gaijin42 (talk) 19:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Nope, that's still pure speculation. Anyone could shout that in order to pin the attack on alleged Islamists. Nothing beyond the fact that the perpetrators shouted that is known. Anything else is pure speculation at this point. --89.0.251.229 (talk) 21:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Dear anon, if the motives are unknown, and this is clearly against any peaceful religion will u agree to abandon any religion to which the perpetrators are found to belong and burn their books? If not, you know who done it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.137.242.45 (talk) 20:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They self identified as being with al-Qaida21:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The operative word being "self". And whether or not they said the truth is another question entirely. --89.0.251.229 (talk) 21:54, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Motives are certainly unknown. Even if it was reported that the attackers made statements that would be sympathetic with the practice of Islamic Terrorism, the motives at this point are still unknown. As noted, it's known what an attacker shouted, not what the motive of the attacker may be. This needs to be removed from the article, and ultimately, probably should just be addressed in a more coherent fashion once more information is available. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maxxx12345 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm actually surprised that there is no "Motive" section in the article anywhere. I believe there should be some type of explanation as to why this attack occurred. It's obviously a key topic that needs to be expanded upon. Even speculation and theories of motive are notable when regarding horrific acts of brutality such as this attack. News channels are talking about the attack almost 24/7 since it happened. There is certainly not going to be a lack of sources when it comes to motive theories. It seems that people are shying away from expanding upon the motive part of article due to political correctness. Zup326 (talk) 14:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

"Je suis Charlie"

Do we really need a seperate "Je suis Charlie" article? It could probably be easily covered here. Nohomersryan (talk) 19:47, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I concur, thus far it should be merged into this article. If it blows up into a larger, sustained, movement like Hands up, don't shoot or something, then we could reconsider. Gaijin42 (talk) 19:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It has been merged here, and totally messed up, twice. I am going to re-correct it and if it is messed up again I think it need to be split out.

My other concern is that it will dominate the article.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:11, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Attempts seem to be being made to do exactly that. The bloody slogan is not the focus of the demonstrations and other protests, the shootings are! The slogan is just a symbol, and should not be a major subject of the article. -- The Anome (talk) 20:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

All the text that you are futzing with was written for a stand-alone article and merged here without prior discussion with me, which is fine. Then people started to mess with the heading levels (or the merger got them wrong). There is much more to be written here and I think your edits support my statement that merging Je suis Charlie here was a mistake. I shall therefore revert the merge. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Rich, you are not un-messing the "Je suis Charlie" section, you're messing up the Charlie Hebdo shooting article. This structure is completely wrong. People are not demonstrating for the slogan, the demonstrations and comments are not about the slogan, how can I possibly make it clearer to you? It would be as if you made all Vietnam protests a subsection of "hey, hey, LBJ". -- The Anome (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The section on Demonstrations for example was written (by me) in the article Je suis Charlie to be a section about the demonstrations where the slogan was used. It may be that we need a list of demonstrations here, which you may by all means start by copying the section from Je suis Charlie, and it may well be that the Je suis Charlie article will change to say "The slogan was widely used at all the major demonstrations (see Charlie Hebdo shooting#Demonstrations), but we simply don't know that yet.

Merging two articles then destroying the content of one of them (usually inadvertently) happens all too often. That doesn't mean its a good thing. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Then un-merge them. Which I guess was what you were trying to force by your edits. The demonstrations and press protests belong here, and not all of them are being reported as using the "Je suis Charlie" slogan. Can I remind you that you don't WP:OWN your text? -- The Anome (talk) 20:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough:: Sorry about the tone of my last comment. You and I are both right: this is an ideal case for a detail article, much of the material belongs in both the main and detail articles, but with different treatments, and it all seems to be working well now. Best regards, -- The Anome (talk) 21:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: No problem. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Last sentence of first paragraph reads "There are three suspects in total who escaped in a car and is still at large."

Should read "There are three suspects in total who escaped in a car and ARE still at large." 67.185.137.209 (talk) 19:50, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Ian Hislop

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2900734/Private-Eye-editor-Ian-Hislop-says-cartoonists-paid-high-price-exercising-comic-liberty.html

Could the views of Ian Hislop, whose publication is seen as a British equivalent of Charlie Hebdo, be included in the reactions? OK, we have reactions from Presidents, but what about from satirists, the very people targeted and killed? '''tAD''' (talk) 20:48, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I asked the very same question above. I agree that his reaction should be included. His position as editor of Private Eye give him the status of notability in the circumstances. Mjroots (talk) 20:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Indeed. I've done so. -- The Anome (talk) 21:23, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Expand from?

Is it really necessary to have the expand from the French Wiki article tag here. There are going to be plenty of English language sources that we should be able to write a decent artice (as is happening) without needing to resort to copying from fr-wiki. Mjroots (talk) 20:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Has been removed, which I think is a good call. At this stage (rapidly changing content, plenty of English-language sources emerging), actual translation from fr-wiki is of marginal importance. GregorB (talk) 21:36, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

List of terrorist attacks in France

I've written a complementary article at List of terrorist attacks in France. Comments would be welcomed there. Prioryman (talk) 21:04, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Great article! And you linked to the 1961 train bombing. I had no idea it was the OAS and not the FLN.Amyzex (talk) 22:39, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

"a woman"

The woman was Corinne Rey (!), a colleague cartoonist from Charlie Hebdo. Please, don't be rude.--91.10.56.167 (talk) 21:15, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I reinserted the name and profession; I agree it may seem like relevant info. Iselilja (talk) 21:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Merci. C'est Coco! --91.10.56.167 (talk) 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Deadliest attack since 1961 train bombing?

There was a 1989 incident in which 14 people were killed and 8 others injured in a shooting. How does this not qualify as an attack? Undescribed (talk) 21:17, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, it states that this is the deadliest terrorist attack since the 2011 Norway attacks. What about the 2013 Velika Ivanča shooting which killed 14 people? As for the semantics as to whether either the 1989 and 2013 incidents can be considered "terrorist attacks"; by excluding these two incidents it misleads readers into thinking that this was the deadliest attack overall since 1961. Wouldn't it make more sense to say something along the lines of "this was the deadliest mass shooting in France since the 1989 incident"? Undescribed (talk) 21:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Both incidents were spree killings - criminal acts, not terrorist attacks. As List of terrorist attacks in France shows, there hasn't been a terrorist attack with deaths in double figures since 1961. Prioryman (talk) 22:03, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

More demonstration photos?

Can we have more free content photos of street protests, please? I'm thinking in particular of the Trafalgar Square demo, if any British Wikipedians are in the area. -- The Anome (talk) 21:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

@The Anome: I took a pretty poor-quality video, which I've just transcoded and uploaded to File:CharlieHebdo support demo in London 2015-01-07.ogv. But I'm a terrible videographer and it's only a 15-second Instagram clip. Feel free to include it, though; I've CC0-licensed it, but I'm happy for it to be released to the public domain. Helpfully, I didn't manage to capture any useful sound, and I left before La Marseillaise was sung :o( — OwenBlacker (Talk) 11:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

A friend of mine is a photographer and has just uploaded three photos:

• 
  File:Tributes to the victims.jpg
• 
  File:Keep Calm and Charlie On placard.jpg
• 
  File:Participant holding a pen.jpg

I'll add File:Participant holding a pen.jpg to the article now. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I added File:Tributes to the victims.jpg too, and moved the international images into another gallery — OwenBlacker (Talk) 14:46, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 January 2015

Please remove the "rocket-propelled grenade launcher" from the list of weapons used by the assailants. The article referenced as a source "http://www.lesechos.fr/politique-societe/societe/0204060137070-en-direct-fusillade-au-siege-de-charlie-hebdo-1081010.php", specifically says (at the 14h56 timestamp): "mais n'étaient *pas* équipés de lance-roquette" with translates to: "but [they] did *not* carry a rocket launcher". Loict (talk) 21:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Thanks! AxelBoldt (talk) 22:13, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Undo is in order. Though the refs should reflect what the RSs say. The info is verifiable, in a number of RSs. Epeefleche (talk) 22:28, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Red link erasure

Why do people keep removing red links from the article? We have them for a reason, to direct people to articles on notable subjects that have yet to be made. That is their entire point. Stop removing them. Silverseren^C 21:35, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Suspects

It is very premature to name the suspects in the article. The entire section needs to be modified and the names removed until further confirmation of identity. We can mention more general text about the confirmed and only confirmed known facts of the perpetrators. werldwayd (talk) 21:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

They have been named by the French police as being suspects, seeing as it is only law enforcement that can declare someone a suspect, that is what they are, it bears no impact on their guilt, but no one can deny that they are suspects as the police suspect them to be the perpetrators --DSBennie (talk) 01:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Also, ironically the current trend, imo, in American mainstream media to hold back information from the public for various and often vacuous reasons is a path directly opposite to the stand taken by the editors of the Charlie Hebdo magazine, the subject of the article in question, imo. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Protection requested

Done  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:26, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Motive="Islamic terrorism"?

The infobox lists as motive "Islamic terrorism". This is pure speculation at this point, and completely unacceptable from an encyclopedic point. The perpetrators have not been identified. Please remove the speculation by removing the "Islamic terrorism" from the Motive parameter in the infobox. --89.0.251.229 (talk) 21:52, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The motivation is given as "Islamic terrorism", which cannot be described as a motive. At best, the term describes a means to an end pursued by individuals associating themselves with the religion of Islam. Based on reports the motivation may have been for offense taken on behalf of the prophet Mohammad by individuals.

This term should be removed and replaced with something more accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thecorrector007 (talk • contribs) 22:20, 7 January 2015 (UTC) Replace it with gutterism and redirect when known.

Agreed. Besides entirely speculative, it contradicts the opening sentence from the section on Islamic Terrorism. "Islamic terrorism comprises terrorist acts by groups or individuals who use Islamic motivations or goals for their actions. " It's possible that this attack was an example of Islamic Terrorism, which is yet not even known at this point, but clearly stating the motivation for a terrorist attack is a terrorist attack is not even coherent. Another option might be stating that a possible motive for the attack was Islamic Extremsim (a section painfully in deed of expansion by the way).Maxxx12345 (talk) 22:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The motive has been changed from "Islamic terrorism" to "Terrorism", since when has war or terrorism been actual motives? War and Terrorism are tools to achieve a change in behavior. The motive would be the attempted change in behavior being pursued by the initiators of war or terrorism.

Therefore the motive for the act is the printing of cartoons found to be offensive to the gunmen.

Please make the change if journalism actually matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.202.172.250 (talk) 09:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Weaponry

Our article mentions as weapons: Kalashnikovs, shotguns, grenade launcher. All sources mention Kalashnikovs, I have not found a single source mentioning shotguns, and I can only find a single source mentioning a grenade launcher: Telegraph live page. It states at 13:25: "Some reports suggest that an attacker was also carrying a rocket-propelled grenade launcher." and then at 13:46 and 13:53 repeats the claim, but without the qualification: "gunmen armed with Kalashnikovs and a rocket-launcher..." On the CNN live page and the BBC live page no mention of shotguns or grenade launchers is made. Maybe we should remove this claim for now? AxelBoldt (talk) 21:57, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I just noticed that somebody above has made the same request, with a better argument than mine, so I'll go ahead and remove the non-Kalashnikov weapons. AxelBoldt (talk) 22:01, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm confused. You didn't notice shotgun mention in The Independent, the Irish Times, The Guardian, Channel 4 News, Newsweek, the LA Times, etc? The same with the grenade launcher coverage in various RSs. I think a self-revert is in order. Epeefleche (talk) 22:24, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I'm also confused: why do you link three times to the same Guardian article? Anyway, there seem to be sufficient sources for the shotgun claim, though not for the grenade launcher. I'll put it back in. Thanks, AxelBoldt (talk) 22:44, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

It seems the rocket launcher claim appeared in an early and widely copied AFP report, which has since been retracted:

14:50 - Pas de lance-roquette - Les deux auteurs de l'attaque contre Charlie Hebdo étaient armés de fusils d'assaut kalachnikov mais n'étaient pas équipés de lance-roquette, indique une source policière. Une source proche de l'enquête, s'appuyant sur les premiers éléments des investigations, avait fait état de la présence de lance-roquette. AFP

14:50 - No rocket launcher - The two perpetrators of the attack against Charlie Hebdo were armed with Kalashnikov assault rifles but were not equipped with rocket launchers, according to a police source. A source close to the investigation, based on the first elements of the investigation, had reported the presence of rocket launcher.Google translation

I think we should either remove the rocket launcher claim or at least mention this retraction. AxelBoldt (talk) 23:16, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I still don't understand. You asserted "I can only find a single source mentioning a grenade launcher". In fact, there were several -- as reflected in me linking to several (Telegraph, Daily Mail, Independent, Yahoo, CBS, ABC Australia, etc.). What happened? The same with your other assertion. You wrote: "I have not found a single source mentioning shotguns". But there were at the time (and are) a bevy of them. Epeefleche (talk) 00:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, there are not several sources, and in fact the police have stated there was NO RPG. The only footnote in the article pointing to a news source involving an RPG is to an article that actually states that the use of an RPG has NOT been confirmed. The link provided even says it's not confirmed, that's pretty ironic. This, obviously, needs to be removed from the article. Maxxx12345 (talk) 01:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

apparently one early witness heard something she interpreted as a rocket launcher. (i also wondered, source not worth mention)77.248.209.86 (talk) 01:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

  @AxelBoldt: @Epeefleche: I have boldly removed the Rocket-propelled grenade from the list as the cited source [5] is very sketchy: "A social media post from France's AFP news agency reported that the men may also have been armed with at least one rocket-launcher, though this was not corroborated by other reports." Of course if a reliable source is found, put it back!
The same source was more specific about shotguns though: "Witnesses said that at least two gunmen were involved, and that they were seen armed with AK-47s and pump-action shotguns." Many people though have no idea about firearms. I heard "pump action Kalashnikovs" mentioned, likely a mis-statement!--220 of ^Borg 04:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• It should be restored. There are a number of RSs that report it. A sampling:

• The Telegraph reported that " Cédric Le Béchec, a 33-year-old estate agent, witnessed the attack .... He said that the men .... One of them was carrying a rocket-propelled grenade."
• Yahoo reported that "Police said witnesses heard the attackers, who were armed with a ... rocket launcher, shout ...".
• The Guardian wrote: "three gunmen, armed with ... a rocket-launcher opened fire".
• Newsweek wrote: "The gunmen, heavily armed with ... a rocket launcher".

Epeefleche (talk) 04:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No problem with that, that's what those sources say! , though I won't be surprised if it turns out not so. I'm wondering what they would have planned for an RPG. Perhaps if they hadn't gained entry by threatening someone, they would have used it on the door? Or on Police if a 'SWAT' squad arrived? (pure speculation of course WP:NOTFORUM) --220 of ^Borg 05:25, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Police Unarmed

Most of the police are unarmed in France or more accurately not arms with a firearm. Including the ones that first responded to this tragedy. I'm sure it is just an oversight that information although encyclopedic in nature is not included. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 01:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

No, this is wrong. I know there's a meme being spread by Second Amendment nuts to the effect that "This happened because of unarmed police" but it's not true. French policemen carry sidearms and have done for decades. One of the biggest surprises on my first visit to France was the sight of policemen with guns.--InfiniteBratwurst (talk) 12:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I recall seeing policemen with heavy artillery at the central train stations in Paris. Didn't really make me feel any safer. 惑乱 Wakuran (talk) 13:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I was a citizen in Paris until 2012, it is 100% true that most of the police do not carry firearms and most likely true that the initial police that responded on bicycle were not carrying firearms. I completely understand the totally brainless liberal anti constitution nuts trying to suppress this information though.

Red links

Are articles going to be created on those Muslim organizations? Because if not, then I don't see the need for these red links to be included. I cannot understand why they should be if there aren't going to be any articles. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:34, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The whole point of red links is to show where there are articles yet to be made. That's the entire point of having the ability to make red links in the first place. That is why the software to do so was added. They are meant to be used for non-existent article topics that are notable and deserve an article. They inform editors and readers that there is an article to be made on that topic. Silverseren^C 22:38, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Are those organizations notable, though? And who is going to create those articles? You? Libertarian12111971 (talk) 22:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Editors are going to create those links. We don't know who, we don't know when, but they're out there. Have faith. How do you think Wikipedia grew in the first place? "Always leave something undone" is one of the primary principles of the Wiki philosophy. -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:29, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

The presentation looks yucky with so many red links.--Peaceworld 22:43, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Wow, so "yuckiness" is your standard of editing. That has absolutely nothing to do with notability or anything on Wikipedia. Silverseren^C 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, they are notable, I always check first before I add a red link (though Abbas Shoman may not be, depending on how stringent one is on notability, he's a gray area). And anyone can create the article, The purpose of red links is to inform people about an article being missing, so that anyone who wants to make it can. Silverseren^C 22:45, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Read Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Linking#Red_links "The unassuming coloration of the text, (probably black), is the most productive".--Peaceworld 22:49, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

What you just did is called cherrypicking, especially when it seems you read the first paragraph and stopped. Here, let me continue on for you.

"In prose, if it seems that the level of red linking is overlinking, remember that red links have been found to be a driving force that encourage contributions, and then use that fact to balance the perceived stylistic issues of "overlinking" the red links. (Legitimate red links are titles to unfulfilled coverage of topics that do not violate What Wikipedia is not.) Given a certain number of red links needed, if marking all of them could be overlinking, then just how many should be marked could be a style issue, and just which ones are priority is a helpful contribution."

What you are doing is removing all red links, which as the section you linked says, is wrong. Silverseren^C 22:51, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if the people who complain about red links know that they are helping destroy part of the dynamic that made Wikipedia so interesting they wanted to visit it in the first place? -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:27, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

I really don't know. I remember when Wikipedia was all about the red links, when they each symbolized a new avenue of interesting research to follow, more things to add, more edits to make. Nowadays, it seems like editors don't want to admit that not everything is complete. They want Wikipedia to be more like a show, a play, where everything seems perfect, as if we aren't still missing huge swaths of content on major world cultures and societies. Silverseren^C 23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Vast quantities of things are still missing. Wikidata has 12M+ data items, and we have only 4.5M articles. And Wikidata is far from complete. We need more redlinks, not fewer. -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:05, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Since the organizations are mentioned, presumably they are (per whoever is in favor of them being in the article) sufficiently notable to mention. If not, they should be deleted. If they are notable, they should be redlinked, to encourage creation of an article. It is useful in editing article text to create a red link to indicate that a page will be created soon or that an article should be created for the topic because the subject is notable and verifiable. Epeefleche (talk) 00:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

BETTER QUICKLY CREATE THOSE ARTICLES THEN! >:( Libertarian12111971 (talk) 00:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The great thing is, we don't have to do so right now. We can wait: Wikipedia is not finished, and there is no deadline. A wiki is rich soil for things to grow in. -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

That's funny, because a red link that's not dealt with in time is useless and not needed in the first place. I suggest creating those articles first BEFORE linking them. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 01:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Red links are useful. Several related articles have been created in the past 24 hours and red links encourage further expansion. It doesn't have to happen this minute. —sroc 💬 04:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with Imp (there is no deadline) and sroc (redlinks are useful). And I see also that one of the redlinks in question, at least, has led to a (admittedly, nearly wholly uncited as of yet) article. Redlinks working as they should. Please don't delete them, as there is no consensus to do so, and redlinks as indicated serve a useful purpose. Epeefleche (talk) 05:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Libertarian12111971: Yes, great idea, you go create a few redlinked articles per wp:sofixit. There's no need to 'shout' though! See also wp:No deadline --220 of ^Borg 06:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• Libertarian, despite his views here not having consensus support, now continues delinking redlinks. Against consensus. He has done this repeatedly deleted, on the basis of his personal view, unsupported by consensus, that redlinks are not appropriate.

Yet again he did it here. With a purported rationale that makes no sense ("If the article for this was deleted, then I don't see any reason why this red link is needed, since the article would be deleted again if remade."). Firstly, where is the evidence that the article was deleted? Secondly, if the entity were non-notable, it would be appropriate to delete the sentence. Thirdly, just because an article is deleted (where that is the case) does not mean a properly written article may not be written, depending on the circumstances.

I would ask him to please stop editing against consensus. And ask that he or someone else restore the link there (and to any similar articles he is delinking, covered by the above discussion). I would also ask him to take this as a warning not to edit against consensus. Epeefleche (talk) 09:01, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The Greek Goverment reaction

Please could you include the Greece's athorities reaction (prime minister Antonis Samaras) for this? http://news.in.gr/greece/article/?aid=1231375569 --176.58.182.79 (talk) 22:53, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Cartoons

There are some excellent cartoons being created, it would be good if some of those that have been shown in the press got a Wikipedia suitable license. Early days for that I know. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 22:55, 7 January 2015 (UTC).

"Excellent" by whose definition? Why would you want to include those here? In what way would they, effectively and objectively, contribute to this article? Can those cartoons your refer to be in any way interpreted as political, and if so, would its publication on this site be appropriate? Just sayin' — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.81.211.91 (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Rich Farmbrough is referencing the cartoons created to protest the attack which I agree would be notable enough for inclusion as examples to reaction to this event --DSBennie (talk) 01:42, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Rich Farmbrough: Here's a link [6] to the sort of thing I believe Rich was talking about. Some extremely good 'commentary' there, "excellent" (In my humble opinion/definition) as Rich said. Nb. I previously started a thread about this lower down at Talk:Charlie Hebdo shooting#Cartoonists reaction. --220 of ^Borg 07:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, that's the sort of thing. The one with the gunbarrel blocked with a pencil was rather clever. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

More rallies

There seem to be demonstrations against these shootings in more cities. This Guardian article has photos of rallies in Paris, Nice, Berlin, Copenhagen, Rennes, London, Marseille, and Toulouse. -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:22, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Also in Lyon.[7] -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:33, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

This is some good stuff and will undoubtedly grow the article. The international response is going to be bigger than what most expected because this attack is more than an attack on people or a country. It was an attack on the freedom of expression. This is the type of attack that really moves people. These types of rallies and responses will spread. Therefore, it's important to proceed with caution and handle the international responses accordingly before dismissing information, both public and political. Zup326 (talk) 01:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

We have to wait for more information first and see what happens afterwards. Xharm (talk) 11:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

It's already out there and happening. There are a lot of notable rallies and vigils taking place all over the world with thousands of people taking part in the "Je suis Charlie" campaign. I've already added four paragraphs to the Demonstrations section. If someone wants to help with the section, please feel free to do so especially those who have access to sources that are not in English. If no one feels like writing then post the source here. Zup326 (talk) 15:58, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Split

All of the predictable platitudes from uninvolved foreign leaders are dominating this article. It is time to split off this section and move it to a separate article, consistent with past practice for disasters and attacks. WWGB (talk) 23:31, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree for above reasons Gamebuster19901 (talk) 23:37, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree likewise. The spontaneous public demonstrations are real news, the motherhood-and-apple-pie platitudes from politicians can just be shunted somewhere else for summarization here. -- Impsswoon (talk) 23:42, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible It's likely headed that way but it may be a little too soon to split. There is still a lot more information yet to come out about the actual attack itself. International reactions are naturally the first type of important information that is available. They pretty much have to be included but when more information is available, it will be added and "restore balance" so to speak. Impatience due to someone's idea of what symmetry is or isn't, is seldom helpful to these types of articles. Allow the article enough time to grow as more people find and contribute relevant information. And yes political response to these types of acts is relevant, like it or not. The public demonstrations are going to yield a lot of information as well. Zup326 (talk) 23:56, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible. Maybe this can be split off if it gets too proportionally long to the rest of the article. Epicgenius (talk) 00:00, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Reaction from world leaders is quick to come in, so it tends to be a large % of article for first few days. This will form a small portion of the final article, as this event progresses. Standalone article, of reactions only, is not notable - the attack, pursuit/capture/prosecution of suspects, changes to life in France is the notable story. Also, how many details of the individual reactions from world leaders are required in final/future version of the original article? (see Boston Marathon bombings#International) Jmg38 (talk) 00:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Like 10 governments have made responses, I believe that makes it notable. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree that predictable, meaningless platitudes from uninvolved foreign leaders need to go somewhere else. Did anyone think that the representatives of any democracies were going to praise the Islamic terrorists? --- [added later] Also ---> Now some genius added the Catalonian sub-government head's platitudes and added a pretty flag? Catalonia Hey! Let's start adding the comments from mayors around the world too and adding cute little icons! XavierItzm (talk) 15:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree per Jmg38. Reactions from leaders are always quick to be dumped in these types of articles. They are soon pruned and removed. As of right now, the section is incredibly bloated, and will undoubtedly be trimmed down as the event settles. I don't think splitting bloated content is something you want to encourage. Nohomersryan (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I wouldn't split. I would just heavily trim the section and leave three, four paragraph at most. There's no need to quote every single world leader next to a pretty flag. And the information is not notable enough to get an article of its own. That kind of stuff makes sense when there are conflicting opinions, or at least room for nuances. But in cases like this one, is a waste of space. --RR (talk) 00:34, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: As RR says, this is better trimmed than split. Summarise it to a maximum of a sentence per (major) world leader, confining it to the major NATO and EU countries and the international organisations like the UN. Prioryman (talk) 00:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I disagree with "trimming." The event is less than 12 hours old here folks. There has not yet been sufficient time for responses to turn into actions. It's not really a "requirement thing" in terms of numbers or someone's idea of what's too long or not. It's a requirement in terms of notable response and the impact it eventually leads to. Responses start with these type of statements but eventually include more than statements as well. An event as brutal as this doesn't impact France alone. It will lead to changes in defense systems and many other countries will undoubtedly make updates to their national security policies as well. Other nations will be looking to learn from this. When dozens of world leaders address the world over the issue, then what they say or do in response IS notable. Viewing the initial international responses -- within less than 12 hours of the event even happening -- as "meaningless platitudes" is closed-minded and counterproductive to growing the article before further information is even added. Trimming is also counterproductive. Zup326 (talk) 00:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree The second article would not be warranted under these circumstances. The reactions will be edited down, and as we get more information regarding this incident, the other sections will lengthen.

Agree it supposes an unfounded belief governments could not be involved and would allways have a seperate case to deny further documentation. 77.248.209.86 (talk) 01:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: So far, we have 3 disagrees, 4 agrees, and 2 possibles. Epicgenius (talk) 03:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Possible As stated by Zup326 and Epicgenius, a split is more plausible if the section becomes much longer than needed in the article. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 03:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree It would be best to summarise the responses of different states in a paragraph and split the current list. Mbcap (talk) 03:20, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree for initial reasons Nocturnalnow (talk) 04:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree mostly because it makes the article less cluttered and more can be said about some of the political cartoons that have come out of the incident. Benbuff91 23:53 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: Perhaps not yet. First, the article is not so long that it calls for a split yet. Second, not all of the statements are predictable (though most are); for example, Iran has spoken up. It will be interesting (to me) to see if Qatar and Jordan's Parliament and Tunisia and Lebanon and Libya speak up, what they say ... and it will be interesting as well if they say nothing. Epeefleche (talk) 05:03, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment:35 countries/organizations are listed, that is a lot of lines being taken up, I would say that's pretty long. Gamebuster19901 (talk) 06:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You may in your personal opinion think that's long. But wp has standards. See our Article Size Guideline. This is nowhere near the size that our guideline suggests calls for an article to be split (the prose size, which is what we look at per the guideline, is currently 29 kB, and per our guideline "< 40 kB--Length alone does not justify division"). --Epeefleche (talk) 09:38, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree "predictable platitudes" should be removed altogether 77.249.127.13 (talk) 08:53, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree what 77.249 said. Zap them here. A much shorter and well written piece of prose in summary style would do the trick much better, and in line with our guideline. --Dweller (talk) 08:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree No reason to have these platitudes dominate this article.--Victor Chmara (talk) 09:43, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree The section in this article is not that long. I would even say I prefer it not to be edited down because you could lose relevant information.--75.118.128.7 (talk) 09:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Being predictable is not a good enough reason to split or shorten the reactions. It's fine. Doing so has only an aesthetic value.--Joey (talk) 10:07, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree Trim down the mince and there will be no need to split it. Lugnuts ^{Dick Laurent is dead} 10:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree Split it off to another article before it gets too big and trim the section down. Xharm (talk) 10:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree per SUMMARY STYLE. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 10:28, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Agree as above. There should presumably be a summary here, of course, and the full list should exist somewhere. But not here. — OwenBlacker (Talk) 10:52, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree For the most part, it's uninteresting fluff. Curly Turkey ¡gobble! 11:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The list will only keep getting bigger as more leaders respond. It'd be better to turn the move list to a new article and turn existing list to a prose.--Chamith (talk) 12:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: I've noticed that a significant amount of people who want the list gone or pruned want such merely for their own personal idea of what's aesthetic for which there is no wiki basis to back it with. With regards to size, it's currently within size limits of what's "too big" in comparison with the rest of the article. If the size of the list bothers the majority of folks merely due to aesthetic purposes then there is simply no need for action on the issue yet. Remember that Wikipedia is not a polling station and majority votes cannot replace or supersede meaningful discussion as it relates to guidelines. Some of the political reactions and statements actually are quite interesting to be honest and do give relevantly notable insight about the stances of each nation. It's not every day that dozens of governments, ministers, and/or presidents all speak up about a single issue. As such, their responses are even notable whether they are "interesting" or not. The Boston Bombings certainly never got this many notable responses from literally dozens of political leaders around the world. Zup326 (talk) 13:31, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Comment: No offence but I believe people in general waste a lot of time on trying to figure out what someone else is thinking and then a reference to a rule is launched on the basis of the assumption made about what the other person is thinking. Unless a person says "for aesthetic reasons" etc. we can not assume that is the basis of their opinion. I think its better and much more constructive to just address the words written by the individual rather than an assumptive view of what may be behind those words. Nocturnalnow (talk) 13:39, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You made quite an assumption in thinking that assumptions were made. I'm in favor of splitting the article when it calls for it but there's no need to rush it. The "Je suis Charlie" article was instantly nominated for deletion as expected. Why rush this article to a split as well when it's barely a day old and is still within the size guideline? Zup326 (talk) 14:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree The list is becoming too large and therefore merits its own Article. Avono (talk) 13:41, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Disagree - at least for now. The condemnations are a part of the ongoing process. A split is proper later, when the news hubbub has petered out. --Janke | Talk 15:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree, the international reaction list is becoming to big, it needs to split. CookieMonster755 (talk) 15:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

CAPTURE OF SUSPECTS

See here. We should change the fatalities to 13, with a noted "(including one perpetrator)" as done with past event.s 24.44.176.72 (talk) 23:58, 7 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 00:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)For something this notable, I would like to suggest a corresponding article since there have been multiple articles that have guessed whether they have been captured or not. Furthermore, the article states that it was published at 5:14 pm today. It is 7:09 pm on the East Coast. Even accounting for possible time zone differences, there is a difference of over a hour between the article and the present time. So, if this is the case, I believe there should be more articles than just the one. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've undone this change. I can't find any other sources corroborating it. Better to be right than to be the first to report it, IMO. Prioryman (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Alright, I have gone through a list of articles based on date instead of relevance. There are still a sizeable number of articles that are being published that state that the suspects are still on the run, though there are also a sizeable number of article that say the opposite. To list the articles that do: MSNBC (Updated article), Business Insider Australia (Bad Timestamp), AOL (Unknown). Inquisitr (Updated), Channel News Asia, Yahoo News Australia, CNBC. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:40, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I would put more credence on French sources, to be honest. Until multiple French media outlets are reporting this, we shouldn't treat it as verified. Prioryman (talk) 00:51, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

What the hell. Article says the perps have been captured. They have not. Why are you letting bullshit slip through into this article? 69.143.57.101 (talk) 00:10, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

There certainly seems to be something going on in Reims in the last few minutes,[8] and I suspect this is a fog-of-war situation. Let's wait a bit until multiple reliable sources have achieved consensus. -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 00:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The section above is a discussion related to this. --Super Goku V (talk) 00:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done. the NBC report is the only WP:RS to report this, and the story gives "two senior U.S. counterterrorism officials" as the source. No other WP:RS have picked it up, which is unusual for something like this. Let's wait for the world's media to carry something better sourced than this. -- Impsswoon (talk) 00:29, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Improper comparisons with other incidents

I've noticed that people seem to be trying to add comparisons with a 1989 spree killing to the intro. That's original research - no reliable source I know of has compared this incident to that one - and is an improper comparison anyway, as that was a purely criminal incident with no terrorist element. The French media are citing the 1961 Vitry-Le-François train bombing as this attack's most deadly predecessor. We should go with the comparisons made by reliable sources, not invent our own. Prioryman (talk) 00:16, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I think it is useful to make such comparisons at least in the See also section, but we should start at the beginning with Ka'b ibn al-Ashraf, Abu 'Afak, and 'Asma' bint Marwan. Wnt (talk) 00:23, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Erm, no. Those are exceedingly weak comparisons by any standard. Prioryman (talk) 00:24, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Prioryman, I also note that the comparision with the Paris Massacre of 1961 is WP:OR. Blaue Max (talk) 11:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Add to Reactions - International

• Iran - The Iranian spokeswoman of the Foreign Ministry Marzieh Afkham condemned the attack and said that "any terrorist action against innocent humans is against the teachings of Islam".[9]

• Will do. Agree it should be added. Wikimandia (talk) 01:56, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Event

Under the "Event" heading, it states: One of the gunmen then ran towards the policeman, shouting, "Did you want to kill me?" The policeman then answered "No, it's ok, chief", raising his hand towards the gunman, before being shot in the head at close range by him. Were these words spoken in English or in French? I suspect – but am not sure – that they were speaking French. If that's the case, the sentence somehow needs to be revised to reflect that. Otherwise, it sounds like these individuals were having a conversation in English. Does anyone know for sure? Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 01:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Done Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

i object the version in the article. i have not seen it anywhere. the versions i have seen are : police: do you want to kill me, perp: ok chief. and perp: did you want to kill me? police: no it is ok. probably the first is correct a german newspaper would hardly dare turn about facts in france.77.248.209.86 (talk) 01:37, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

You object. Okay. We will see others' opinions to see if they object, too. But this sounds about right. Epicgenius (talk) 03:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Global press are censoring the cartoons

http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2015/01/07/charlie_hebdo_cartoons_self_censorship_by_several_major_outlets.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.225.252.201 (talk) 01:48, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes. The media not just "chose to not show the images" as the wiki entry states, but are actively censoring them by pixelation and cropping. 213.112.195.232 (talk) 11:12, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Referring to the cartoonists by their surnames

Georges Wosilowski is referred to exclusively by his surname, but his article uses his full name, unlike the others who clearly used pseudonyms. Why is this? Nohomersryan (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

 Fixed Epicgenius (talk) 03:08, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@Epicgenius: Shouldn't we really have both?

ie "Charb (Stéphane Charbonnier) "

or "Stéphane Charbonnier, known as Charb"

? --220 of ^Borg 04:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

@220 of Borg: Sure. Epicgenius (talk) 15:49, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Listing all of the people that were unhurt as well?

I think that's totally unnecessary. They didn't even have any sort of direct contact with the gunmen. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 06:02, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

• If you would read then you would know the relation of each person posted. Several that were unharmed were in the meeting and survived. But according to you that is not relevant to the article. A magazine staff only has so many members, many of whom are well known in France as cartoonists and journalists and will now be in the public eye. HesioneHushabye (talk) 06:09, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to hear YOUR opinion. I need to hear those of others. Besides, the formatting of your "list" (or lack thereof) is completely horrible and grating. Better at least fix it. Libertarian12111971 (talk) 06:18, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Please assume good faith of other editors at all times, Libertarian12111971, especially in the wake of the murder of 12. Here's my opinion: If you are skilled in formatting lists, why not show your skill to other editors by fixing this one? If other notable people were in that murder den, then of course that should be mentioned in this article. This was clearly a mass assassination, and we should report every single notable person there, based on coverage in reliable sources. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 06:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Several editors have disagreed with you User:HesioneHushabye, here and in editing. Please stop edit-warring. It is not encyclopedic content. --Dweller (talk) 08:47, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Cartoonists reaction

Interesting number of cartoons have been made commenting on the attack. See #JeSuisCharlie: Cartoonists Raise Their Pencils in Solidarity With Charlie Hebdo --220 of ^Borg 06:13, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Merabet's religion

The inclusion of the sentence "Merabet was a Muslim." only seems to serve one purpose, which is showing that Islamists also kill other Muslims. We already know that, and it does seem redundant and even a bit propagandist ("look guys, they killed other Muslims too, so don't be mad at all Muslims" kind of thing). It's doubtful whether it belongs on Wikipedia.

Look at it this way - if the other victims don't have their religion listed, why is it necessary to list his? Yes, it's only for the purposes of influencing the reader. Nice job, whoever did that.89.176.209.84 (talk) 12:04, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

For exactly the reason you proposed: they kill their own kind, what sort of "jihad" is that? It goes to prove that they are not true Islamists, just thugs who kill indiscriminately in the "name" of Islam. WWGB (talk) 12:17, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I've wondered this too, and WWGB, I think that's precisely why we shouldn't say it. Wikipedia shouldn't be making any points. We can leave that to media commentators. We should just report the secondary sources, not be one. --Dweller (talk) 12:26, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

I second the comment by Dweller. If it is included to "prove that they are not true Islamists", then it is original research which should not be in the Wikipedia article. --Reinoutr (talk) 12:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

But we aren't making any points, merely stating a fact published in a reliable source. We don't know the religion of the other victims as that was not published. There is nothing sinister in publishing a known fact without commentary as to its significance. WWGB (talk) 12:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

The reason this is so widely reported is that it is a cognitive dissonance, and of course commentators draw (varied) conclusions. We should report both on the fact, and the commentary. Ideally we would like to draw from academic analyses of the commentary, but balanced and robust peer reviewed work is a long way off. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 14:57, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

Merabet's religion is mentioned by reliable sources and therefore should be reported. If we are going to talk about "Islamic" terrorism, and the fact that the attackers shouted "Allahu Akbar", I don't see why we need to be shy about reporting that at least one of the victims was himself Muslim.VR _talk 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC) It is absolutely biased - even malicious - to report on the religion of the attackers, but to somehow hide the religion of the victims. What is the motive for hiding Merabet's religion

Semi-protected edit request on 8 January 2015

Please add tweets by Finnish Prime Minister Alexander Stubb condemning the attack in both English and French: https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/552797154692300800 https://twitter.com/alexstubb/status/552801495331405824 194.100.57.2 (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Avono (talk) 13:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Arabic name for the suspects?

Hello,

in the Suspects [10] section is written: "Saïd Kouachi (Arabic: سعيد كواشي‎; born 7 September 1980) and Chérif Kouachi (Arabic: وشريف كواشي‎‎; born 29 November 1982)".

As both were born in France, I wonder whether their names have ever been officially written in Arabic. Or maybe they have double French-Algerian nationality; in this case, it might be written in Arabic on their Algerian passport, but as they have always lived in France (their parents died as they were young), I doubt they have one.

So, is there any source stating that their name was written in Arabic on an official document? If no, it should be imho removed.

cdang|write me 13:59, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Also, in the name Of Chérif Kouachi in Arabic (وشريف), the first letter و is just the conjunction "and". This, at least, should be fixed (the letter deleted). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.1.82.219 (talk) 14:06, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

So, probably a copy/paste from a webpage in Arabic. This is probably a translation of their French name in Arabic and not an official way to write their name.

cdang|write me 14:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Agreeing with Cdang's comment above: if their names were never written in Arabic in any official document, the Latin-alphabet version of them is the canonical version. An Algerian passport, however, would count, but we have no evidence either of them ever had one. -- The Anome (talk) 14:30, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reactions - Press release from the International Olympic Committee

The IOC president Thomas Bach has issued a letter. Letter to President Hollande and to the French people from IOC President Thomas Bach Hektor (talk) 14:33, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Publication to continue

The remaining staff have announced that publication is to continue, in spite of the deaths of their colleagues. I've added this to the article, and put it in the intro as well, since this is highly significant: the killers have failed to in their goal to "kill Charlie Hebdo". -- The Anome (talk) 15:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Anjem Choudhary? Really?

Who gives a flying fuck what that satanic piece of shit has to say? 99.9% of Muslims reject what Choudhary stands for because he is a disgrace to Islam. Furthermore, he is a disgrace to humanity. Why is any credence being given to his verbal diarrhea? Peace Peddler (talk) 15:15, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Anonymous twitter reactions

Currently we report anonymous twitter reactions under "Muslim reactions". These are all anonymous twitter accounts and its not clear that they are connected to real Muslims. In other words, while the language used here is Islamic, it is not at all clear that these account belong to people who are actually Muslim. Nor does the source actually that these twitter users are Muslim. So these can't be called "Muslim reactions".VR _talk 15:21, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Reliable sources report them as such, and that's what matters: we should be reporting what reliable sources say on the matter. If we were performing our own original research off Twitter directly, you're right, we can't say that ourselves -- but then again, we shouldn't be doing original research anyway: see WP:OR. -- The Anome (talk) 15:36, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Non-arrests and Crepy-en-Valois

We should cover the mis-reporting of the capture and also the apparent sighting at Crepy-en-Valois. Of course we should be crsytal clear on what is known to be incorrect and careful not to overstate the certainty of the rest. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 15:22, 8 January 2015 (UTC).

"A policewoman was killed in a shootout in Paris earlier in the day, but police sources could not immediately confirm a link with Wednesday's killings".[11] Need to keep an eye on this incident at it has crept into the article that it was the same shooters. -- GreenC 15:45, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Indonesian response to the Charlie Hebdo shooting

As an Indonesian, I've recently gathered some response from the Indonesian Government regarding the shooting. Vice President of the Republic of Indonesia has said in an interview that the Government of Indonesia "expressed their concern about the shooting", and that "Indonesia rejects every form of violence, in particular terrorism".(translated appropriately from Indonesian/Bahasa Indonesia) Kindly consider to add this to the Reactions/Government/International part of the page to whoever have seen this and/or have the capability to do so. Thanks! Keymind (talk) 15:44, 8 January 2015 (UTC)

Another terrorist attack just confirmed?

A cop was killed and another person critically injured. Has been confirmed as another terrorist attack. http://sovereignfm.com/cop-killed-in-second-paris-terror-attack/ How should this be incorporated into the article? Undescribed (talk) 16:11, 8 January 2015 (UTC)